What if "we the people" agreed that the real enemy was the Oligarchy?

[icehorse]

My sense is that for the most part, our discussions of GOP vs. Dem and the associated, bi-directional fingerpointing are exactly what the folks in power want us to do. Further, for the most part, the vast majority of Washington DC has been compromised one way or another, either by simple bribery or more brutal forms of coercion. (And for this thread, slicing and dicing the underpinnings of such widespread corruption might not be important.)

If you accept the above, even for the sake of discussion, and "we the people" came to realize that it's NOT blue people vs. red people, instead it's people against the Oligarchy, what sorts of peaceful revolutions could be employed to fight the oligarchy?

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

 

[Iti oj]

My sense is that for the most part, our discussions of GOP vs. Dem and the associated, bi-directional fingerpointing are exactly what the folks in power want us to do. Further, for the most part, the vast majority of Washington DC has been compromised one way or another, either by simple bribery or more brutal forms of coercion. (And for this thread, slicing and dicing the underpinnings of such widespread corruption might not be important.)

If you accept the above, even for the sake of discussion, and "we the people" came to realize that it's NOT blue people vs. red people, instead it's people against the Oligarchy, what sorts of peaceful revolutions could be employed to fight the oligarchy?

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

Well I accept the premise as truth. The answer to your question is complicated. Though I imagine if this became the main line of thinking, voting for independents and third party would be a part of the answer.

 

[Laika]

My sense is that for the most part, our discussions of GOP vs. Dem and the associated, bi-directional fingerpointing are exactly what the folks in power want us to do. Further, for the most part, the vast majority of Washington DC has been compromised one way or another, either by simple bribery or more brutal forms of coercion. (And for this thread, slicing and dicing the underpinnings of such widespread corruption might not be important.)

If you accept the above, even for the sake of discussion, and "we the people" came to realize that it's NOT blue people vs. red people, instead it's people against the Oligarchy, what sorts of peaceful revolutions could be employed to fight the oligarchy?

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

Its advisible to help build up a grass roots movement brick by brick, say by joining a third party, becoming a member of a trade union or a pressure group, etc.

The circumstances in the US are ripe for such a process to begin as the 2016 election was a disaster no matter who won. But it demands a long-term commitment to systematic change to-at a minimum- root out the corruption and cronyism in order to restore a working model built on existing constitutional principles. It won't be solved by a single petition or a single election- it has to be cumulative and sustained effort of many people over many years.

Obviously there are more radical approaches, but they will follow this same pattern of building up a movement capable of unseating the status quo with different ideologies. So it depends on the vision of america you have in mind and what demands you think have to be met for the system to start working for "we the people".

 

[Sunstone]

The emerging Oligarchy is perhaps the major problem in America today since the resolution of so many other problems depends on the resolution of that one. But it will take time and effort for most people to see it. Unless they do, however, the Oligarchy will win.

 

[Kemosloby]

They would broadcast on the TV "The American people want a stronger Oligarchy", then they would make a stronger Oligarchy.

 

[icehorse]

The emerging Oligarchy is perhaps the major problem in America today since the resolution of so many other problems depends on the resolution of that one. But it will take time and effort for most people to see it. Unless they do, however, the Oligarchy will win.

Right! So one useful action for those of us in agreement, is to keep this issue front and center whenever we get involved in political discussions. A sort of grass-roots educational initiative so that more people "see it" and understand the word.

 

[Iti oj]

Right! So one useful action for those of us in agreement, is to keep this issue front and center whenever we get involved in political discussions. A sort of grass-roots educational initiative so that more people "see it" and understand the word.

Yes!

 

[Koldo]

My sense is that for the most part, our discussions of GOP vs. Dem and the associated, bi-directional fingerpointing are exactly what the folks in power want us to do. Further, for the most part, the vast majority of Washington DC has been compromised one way or another, either by simple bribery or more brutal forms of coercion. (And for this thread, slicing and dicing the underpinnings of such widespread corruption might not be important.)

If you accept the above, even for the sake of discussion, and "we the people" came to realize that it's NOT blue people vs. red people, instead it's people against the Oligarchy, what sorts of peaceful revolutions could be employed to fight the oligarchy?

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

Don't count on that working. Just don't.

 

[Augustus]

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

Well a 2 party system is only 1 political party up from a dictatorship, and when a country is so starkly divided along partisan lines most people are happy when their "lesser of 2 evils" wins.

This makes it difficult to create any momentum as anything associated with or seen as benefiting one party over the other becomes an object of partisan hatred.

If one party supports something, then the other party must hate it as a particularly nefarious evil.

Any calls for electoral reform now would be seen as 'liberal whining', and if the Dems get back into power then it would be 'Republican deviousness'.

Probably one of the only things that crosses the political divide is the public's disdain for 'business as usual', but the people care too much about their side winning to do anything about it.

The only thing that would work is a genuinely inclusive popular movement that spans party lines and focuses on significant political and electoral reform.

Personally, I think the best solution would be one that focuses on radical devolution of power to the state and municipal level. As well as being a far better method of governance, it is something that many Republicans want, and should very much be something that Democrats want too.

A devolved system of power is much harder to capture by an oligarchy than a centralised one is.

A federalised USA with devolved power might go a long way to reducing the political divide between people. When Red State people weren't affected by far off Blue State voters (and vice versa) they can coexist much more happily.

 

[Yerda]

Live with it or revolt. And neither of those work.

 

[Koldo]

Well a 2 party system is only 1 political party up from a dictatorship, and when a country is so starkly divided along partisan lines most people are happy when their "lesser of 2 evils" wins.

This makes it difficult to create any momentum as anything associated with or seen as benefiting one party over the other becomes an object of partisan hatred.

If one party supports something, then the other party must hate it as a particularly nefarious evil.

Any calls for electoral reform now would be seen as 'liberal whining', and if the Dems get back into power then it would be 'Republican deviousness'.

Probably one of the only things that crosses the political divide is the public's disdain for 'business as usual', but the people care too much about their side winning to do anything about it.

The only thing that would work is a genuinely inclusive popular movement that spans party lines and focuses on significant political and electoral reform.

Personally, I think the best solution would be one that focuses on radical devolution of power to the state and municipal level. As well as being a far better method of governance, it is something that many Republicans want, and should very much be something that Democrats want too.

A devolved system of power is much harder to capture by an oligarchy than a centralised one is.

A federalised USA with devolved power might go a long way to reducing the political divide between people. When Red State people weren't affected by far off Blue State voters (and vice versa) they can coexist much more happily.

How would that be a solution... at all ?
Although the average Joe might have more influence at a local level, it also takes a lot less money to buy power.

 

[Augustus]

How would that be a solution... at all ?
Although the average Joe might have more influence at a local level, it also takes a lot less money to buy power.

Oligarchy in a centralised system requires you to capture 1 government. In a decentralised system, 50, 100, 1000....

And 'the average Joe having more influence' is by definition less oligarchical...

Anyway, local campaigns are less money intensive thus lowering barriers to entry and people care far more about local issues meaning they are less likely to be content with a 'lesser of 2 evils' and more likely to have a choice beyond these.

What do you see as being a better system?

 

[BSM1]

My sense is that for the most part, our discussions of GOP vs. Dem and the associated, bi-directional fingerpointing are exactly what the folks in power want us to do. Further, for the most part, the vast majority of Washington DC has been compromised one way or another, either by simple bribery or more brutal forms of coercion. (And for this thread, slicing and dicing the underpinnings of such widespread corruption might not be important.)

If you accept the above, even for the sake of discussion, and "we the people" came to realize that it's NOT blue people vs. red people, instead it's people against the Oligarchy, what sorts of peaceful revolutions could be employed to fight the oligarchy?

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

I think you are seeing a touch of that within the last election. Be that as it may, how would-or even could-your anti-oligarchy be any different in the long run than the supposed oligarchy now in place?

 

[icehorse]

I have an intuition that a multi-party, "coalition-requiring" approach might be a step in the right direction. E.g. eight parties, and several of them have to form a coalition and compromise on a platform in order to achieve a majority.

@Augustus , I agree that some form of de-centralization is most likely part of the solution.

 

[Electus de Lumine]

My sense is that for the most part, our discussions of GOP vs. Dem and the associated, bi-directional fingerpointing are exactly what the folks in power want us to do. Further, for the most part, the vast majority of Washington DC has been compromised one way or another, either by simple bribery or more brutal forms of coercion. (And for this thread, slicing and dicing the underpinnings of such widespread corruption might not be important.)

If you accept the above, even for the sake of discussion, and "we the people" came to realize that it's NOT blue people vs. red people, instead it's people against the Oligarchy, what sorts of peaceful revolutions could be employed to fight the oligarchy?

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

Jokes aside, I think the refusal to vote for party endorsed candidates for any form of office would be a good first step.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't think the problem is the so-called oligarchy. The problem is ignorance and apathy.

 

[Koldo]

Oligarchy in a centralised system requires you to capture 1 government. In a decentralised system, 50, 100, 1000....

It is much cheaper to capture each individual smaller government though. Which means more people can do it.

And 'the average Joe having more influence' is by definition less oligarchical...

Anyway, local campaigns are less money intensive thus lowering barriers to entry and people care far more about local issues meaning they are less likely to be content with a 'lesser of 2 evils' and more likely to have a choice beyond these.

I am not from USA, but the last time I had to vote for mayor and for governor, I still had to vote in the lesser of 2 evils in both cases. So I don't know what you are talking about.

What do you see as being a better system?

Reducing the influence of money on election should be the top priority.
Start by setting a limit on much can be spent on a campaign and get rid of Super PACs.

 

[Curious George]

My sense is that for the most part, our discussions of GOP vs. Dem and the associated, bi-directional fingerpointing are exactly what the folks in power want us to do. Further, for the most part, the vast majority of Washington DC has been compromised one way or another, either by simple bribery or more brutal forms of coercion. (And for this thread, slicing and dicing the underpinnings of such widespread corruption might not be important.)

If you accept the above, even for the sake of discussion, and "we the people" came to realize that it's NOT blue people vs. red people, instead it's people against the Oligarchy, what sorts of peaceful revolutions could be employed to fight the oligarchy?

Widespread tax avoidance? Boycotts? Do demonstrations really work? Other tactics or strategies?

Yet the problem is that most vote on a few issues. The ability to look at a bigger picture eludes too many. Whether the issue is climate change, or guns, or abortion, religion or some other, people will trade a lot to get at what really motivates them. Changing the discussion happens so slowly that the parties react and compensate. Any sort of movement would need clear focus and good leadership in order to overcome the multitude of wedges that would be used to fragment the movement.

 

[Augustus]

It is much cheaper to capture each individual smaller government though. Which means more people can do it... I am not from USA, but the last time I had to vote for mayor and for governor, I still had to vote in the lesser of 2 evils in both cases. So I don't know what you are talking about.

Unless you live in Switzerland, then I doubt your municipalities have the degree of devolved power that I am talking about.

You just said that more people can enter the political process as it is cheaper. There is no magic solution, but bringing the government closer to the people, reducing barriers to entry, increasing accountability and interest in politics, reducing partisan hatred and simplifying government seems like a good start to me.

Reducing the influence of money on election should be the top priority.
Start by setting a limit on much can be spent on a campaign and get rid of Super PACs.

That's really just putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg. You still have a 2 party system that is distant from the people hamstrung by hyperpartisan rivalries, along with the diseconomies of scale caused by large centralised governments and bureaucracies.

You don't think that Switzerland seems like a better governed country?

 

[Curious George]

Unless you live in Switzerland, then I doubt your municipalities have the degree of devolved power that I am talking about.

You just said that more people can enter the political process as it is cheaper. There is no magic solution, but bringing the government closer to the people, reducing barriers to entry, increasing accountability and interest in politics, reducing partisan hatred and simplifying government seems like a good start to me.




That's really just putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg. You still have a 2 party system that is distant from the people hamstrung by hyperpartisan rivalries, along with the diseconomies of scale caused by large centralised governments and bureaucracies.

You don't think that Switzerland seems like a better governed country?

Interesting post. What do you think of sidis' geprodis?